Run jobs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds that default execution only queues unprocessed assets while force re-processes everything, but it never explains what the non-'start' commands (pause, resume, empty, clear-failed) actually do — and 'empty' is a queue-destroying action unexplained relative to destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the default/force nuance and the operation tag; little waste. The trailing DEPRECATED sentence is terse and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating job tool with no output schema, the description covers the queueing path and the deprecation but omits auth/permission requirements and the behavior of each command mode. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps, especially around the destructive-sounding 'empty' command.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both enums are fully listed, so the schema carries the load. The description clarifies the meaning of the force body flag, which is genuine added value, but the command enum values remain semantically undefined beyond their labels.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource: queue assets for a specific job type, and the title/operation line tie it to PUT /jobs/{name}. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from close siblings like immich_run_asset_jobs or immich_create_job, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the default vs force behavior (only unprocessed assets unless force), which is real usage guidance, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus alternatives. The DEPRECATED line points toward a replacement but is vague ('if one exists') and names no specific sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.